Whatcha all think? The "peaceniks" have been chiding the President and Allies for threatening to wage war against Iraq for not disclosing the whereabouts of their weapons of mass destruction and removing them. Iraq has adamantly said that no such weapons exist. YET.... on the news tonight, NBC reported that Saddam Hussein has threatened to launch rockets with warheads filled with biological payload upon U.S. troops.

Now... which is it? Either this maniacal tyrant is bluffing and the "peaceniks" are right; i.e., there are no biological weapons etc., or Hussein has been lying all along and the reports by U.S. Intelligence sources have been telling the truth. If any biological weapons are used by Iraq, then I'm serving dinner for all our "pacifists" regardless of variety. On the menu is fresh CROW.

Pilgrim:<br><br>I have very little doubt that Iraq has such weapons, in substantial quantities, has harbored and aided and trained terrorists of various persuasions, including those that attacked this country, nor, that given enough time, he would have a nuclear weapon, and if he did not use them himself for more than political leverage, would sell or supply at least the b&c to others as it suited his purposes.<br><br>Gerry

Agreed. France has said that they would come to our defense if Saddam uses any of his "non-existant" weapons of mass destruction against our troops.<br><br>Will you be serving french fries (traitor tots) with that crow?

Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth

Pilgrim<br>I agree with your assessments; however I am interested in your thoughts on the issue of the accusations that the US has made SH what he is today.<br>I am referring to the Iraq's war with Iran. If the information I have been given is correct, Reagan helped SH and Iraq in their war against Iran even to the point of chemical weapons. The only problem is that it back fired on the US and they didn't know how to get out of the situation. What makes it even worse, is that if this information is correct, the US did this knowing what SH was like.<br><br>Please do not misunderstand me, I hope these accusations are false, but they sure make one wonder...<br><br>If you would like this to be put in a new thread, I will do so.<br><br>Tom

Tom,<br><br>I have no personal knowledge of what George Bush, Sr. and the U.S. government did in regard to supplying weapons, etc., to Iraq in their war with Iran. What I do have knowledge of is in regard to the lack of verity of this type of "information" which comes out of the Liberal media who is adamantly opposed to any Republican administration and the spurious scuttlebutt which is widely available on the Internet in such matters. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rolleyes.gif" alt="rolleyes" title="rolleyes[/img]<br><br>More to the point, even if the U.S. was responsible for aiding Saddam Hussein in the past, can it be charged that the U.S. made Hussein a blood-thirsty murderer and tyrannical dictator? Wouldn't that be akin to saying that a family that buys their son a fast car is responsible for their son's drunkenness and reckless driving? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/nono.gif" alt="nono" title="nono[/img] Hussein is guilty of crimes against humanity by his own doing. Even his own people hate him for what he has done and will continue to do, if allowed. All this type of rhetoric is no doubt coming from those who are opposed to the impending action of the U.S. against Hussein. And when someone objects to the many false accusations that are thrown about, etc., they are slandered and additionally accused of believing that the President and the U.S. government is blameless in all things; another reactionary and unfounded attempt at character assassination.<br><br>It's a dirty job..... but someone's got to be doing it! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

Tom:<br><br>You may be interested in a recent book, a small one, Coauthored by William Kristol, editor I believe of the Weekly Standard, and another author, that deals with the exact issue that you are referencing and many others with respect to US middle east and other policy. If you are not familiar with Kristol, he is hardly a liberal pacifist, in fact he is one of the architects of America's new post cold war policy which you now see being played out. He is one of Paul Wolfowitz's closest allies and confidants if that gives you any idea of his position on these things.<br><br>I heard him being interviewed 2 nights ago by Charlie Rose for about an hour. What I like about him is that he fully recognizes and doesn't try and minimize any of America's failings, such as the one you refer to, which were done in a complex political context, and thus must be judged fairly, but it was never the less clearly a failure and is one of the reasons that we are not trusted in the region. Like wise, all of the promises of help we made to those inside Iraq, prior to and during the last Iraq conflict, and then promptly forgot and let thousands die while we went back to the golf course. <br><br>Kristol talks very candidly, honestly and convincingly about such error and failures and stresses that if we want to be leaders and respected in the world we must avoid this type of thing in the future. It is refreshing to me to be able to here some one such as Kristol speak on these things without every one calling him a pacifist and and a traitor. Blind patriotism is simply self defeating and Kristol speaks to this issue very cogently. As such, he is an honest, clear thinker who is not affraid to address all sides of the issue head on so that we might move forward and do better in the future. <br><br>If honesty about our failures, including national failure, is a Biblical principle clearly and repeatedly taught in the scriptures, particularly the old testament, doesn't it make sense that we should attempt to emulate these things now in our dealings with the world? I believe we would be much more respected than we are now if we did so.<br><br>I'm sorry but I don't recall the name of the book, but it was just released and a net search under William Kristol will undoubtedly flush it out rather quickly.<br><br>Hope this helps,<br><br>Gerry

Storming Norman Schwarzkopf says this: <span style="background-color:yellow;">Going to war without France is like going hunting without your accordion</span> <br><br>I think that says it all [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/cheers.gif" alt="cheers" title="cheers[/img]

Pilgrim<br><br>First of all, I want to say that what I know about Iraq and SH can and probably is tainted by the liberal media. However, I have heard both sides of this issue and some of that information comes from US military personal themselves.<br><br>I want to say however that in case something I say comes off as offensive, I assure you that it is not my intention. It is only coming from someone who is trying to find out more about the situation.<br>I am definitely in agreement in principle with what president Bush is trying to do in removing SH and his cronies. It is hard to decide whether or not war is the best way to do this, but I am convinced that doing nothing would be worse.<br><br>Your example of a family buying their son a fast car is understood, however I have to say that if the family bought their son a fast car knowing the son is not responsible enough for that fast car, they must take some responsibility in their son's actions.<br>If indeed the US did aid SH in the Iraq Iran war especially in regards to chemical weapons (which by the way is illegal) then I would have to say that they need to face up to their side of the blame.<br><br>Having said all that, since it is water under the bridge, I believe we should react in a manner that makes sure we don't make the same kind of mistakes of the past.<br>That of course starts with prayer by all concerned Christians, which should be the first thing we should be doing before we react.<br><br>God is in control<br><br>Tom<br>

While of course I accept your apology, no problem there, repentance is something that is God-given. One may not repent temporally, it is not even the correct use of the term. Repentance is God given (2 Tim 2:24-26) and it is a gift of God. When God gives one repentance, He enables him to turn from a false action, a false belief, a false thought, et.al. Thus, when you use the term "repent" it also requires one to embrace a true action, a true belief, and a true thought, since God has enabled you have put the ungodly ones away.<br><br>I will PM you the rest of my point.